3rd edition was release in 2000 and 3.0 stopped being supported in 2003 with the release of 3.5. That means it had a 3-year run!
3.5 has been around for 4 and 1/2 years.
Not to mention that 3.5 released a whole new set of core books. They reprinted the system. If they wanted to make 3.5 an enhancment of the existing system, then they should have released Unearthed Arcana with all the changesthey wanted to incorporate, made the book OGL, and said that its the 4th core book.
Everything I've seen of Fourth Edition suggests that the game that WotC wants to sell me is a tactical combat game, with some role-playing to make it cool.I'll admit, that is one of the thing I'm not altogether pleased with, but that is 3e influence. The combat chapter in the 3e PHB suggests a tactical combat game with some role-playing to make it cool.
Well it is the combat chapter, after all.
The skills chapter in the PHB has a lot about using social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, Sense Motive) and other skills with no direct combat application (Appraise, Craft, Knowledge, Perform). Also, there are a lot of utility spells (arcane mark, mending, Tenser's floating disk, animal messenger, etc.).
Posts on this message board and others have people discussing encounters as "having tactical potential" and what have you.
So, I think it unfair to decry 4e for that when 3e is most definitely the culprit in that aspect. I had hoped 4e would pull back from that some, but it seems that will not be the case.
All versions of D&D have focused a lot of attention on combat. It's the nature of RPGs that combat is the easiest part of the game to implement rules for. 3.x actually expanded the core rules to include more detailed social interaction (which in OD&D/AD&D/2nd Ed was simply a "reaction check" based on Charisma), guidelines for designing/running communities (to include a little on economic resources), and an actual system for pricing magic items by effect.
In 3.x, there were more rules for situations outside combat than previous editions had. 4e, from the way WotC is presenting it, will restrict the material for handling stuff outside combat, because "l33t r0xx0r p0wrz r k3wl."
I'm not anti-4e, even if it may sound that way. Frankly, I don't know enough about it to have an opinion of whether or not it will be a good system.
What I'm against is calling 4e D&D, when it basically throws out a large portion of what has defined D&D for 30+ years (the "sacred cows" that WotC keeps sacrificing in their attempt to entice the WoW market). Luckily, no matter what happens with 4e, the 3.x OGL is irrevocable and is available to provide the "classic D&D" feel for systems using it.
|
First let me preface by say that my opinions are just that, and are my own.
Now then, the quote about change is the most poignant and I feel most accurate statement indicating the "why" behind the vehemence of posters who dislike 4e (despite having so little information to go off of at this time). At the root of almost every complaint is some change in one way or another, and as we all know the majority dislikes change.
You are probably right.
But the "change" from 2E to 3E was largely embraced...so its not really "I hate change so I hate 4E"...Its more akin to "why change?" and usually on specific things.
If they were "just" changing the the "broken" aspects of 3E it wouldn't warrant an edition change. Most of the changes people feel strongly about (in the negative) are the truly unnecessary changes. Some may be good, some may be bad, but most are irrelevant.
Now, if we were to remove the 3.5 update fiasco, I think most people would be better able to swallow these unnecessary changes because well, it would have been about 8 years since the last edition, and it be about the right time for a new edition. ANd if you are going to update the broken, might as well relaunch...it has been 8 years after all.
I really think it boils down to just that: The 3.5 fiasco plus unnecessary changes. The necessary stuff we all want, even the people who dislike 4E.
|
Why do I hate 4E? Let me count the ways.
To be honest, all the speculation about the mechanics are irrelevant to me. I am reacting in a personal, possibly irrational way, but very simply I hate 4E because I was pushed. And I'm the type to stand my ground, not turn the other cheek.
I sat at GenCon and was told I don't know how to build challenges for my players, that I can't run monsters effectively, and that I spend hours and hours prepping for my game, and I'm really not a good DM. None of this is true.
I was then told my players are basically stupid, that none of them really know how to play D&D, they make uninformed decisions, use their abilities poorly and have to rest after 3 or 4 encounters. None of this is true.
I was then joyfully told my one HotC staffer how all my old stuff would be obsolite, to have a second staffer jump in with a big crap-eating grin and say "even the fluff!".
I was also told the game my group and I have been enjoying the most and getting most fun and ease-of use of since 1979 was all a mess and they'll now fix it. That I could not possibly be having fun, because I have to perform basic math and roll saving throws.
I was told how one staffer proundly exclaimed most changes came about because he wandered around GenCon RPGA halls and made notes on things that he thought were not fun. Good, way to go, that's how D&D is played in basements and game rooms in home campaigns all over, you're a genius.
4E can be great or it can flop. I'll laugh if it does, honestly. And I will contuinue to play a great game that was cut short (4E is way too soon, by the way) and save a ton of money in the process. Like I'm about to invest in any company who blatantly insults me and acts like a jackass when confronted.
Ah, and the digital initiative is apparently a joke. I pity the fool who signs up for that accident waiting to happen.
:-)
-DM Jeff
|
|
[
2nd edition was out from 1989 until 1999... another 10 year run. The changes in the Revised edition of 1995 were relatively minor, so I don't consider them to be version 2.5 (though some people do).3rd edition was release in 2000 and 3.0 stopped being supported in 2003 with the release of 3.5. That means it had a 3-year run!
3.5 has been around for 4 and 1/2 years.
I agree. The 2e revision wasn't significant enough (mostly editing and errata issues) to warrant it being called 2.5.
I do think the differences in 3.0 and 3.5 mark them as nearly different editions. Many of the changes were significant enough to change game play. Having converted a campaign from 3.0 to 3.5 I can say the transition was not entirely smooth.
In this case, personal perception is key. I see the two incarnations of 3.x as edition changes and thus I find that 4e is probably coming a bit too soon. Others obviously see the inverse and that's fine. This is a change in my mindset actually. When 4e was announced I think I was ready for an edition change. At some point this opinion changed. I am not sure why.
I don't hate 4e. I am wary but willing to check it out. I have my issues with 3e but some of the changes/alterations to 4e aren't going to address those issues in the initial release. But that doesn't mean I won't check out the system, drive it around, examine how it is put together, and see if can bear some changes to fit my game style.
As I have said in other threads, I am worrying the game is passing me by. This has nothing to do with age and more with personal preference. I can't say this is entirely grounded in anything "real" and only looking at the new game will determine if my concern bears any fruit.
What's funny is that I think the game passed me by a long time ago and I never noticed. The release of 4e has helped me realize that. I have been playing 3.5 like I played 1e or 2e and have done so for a long time now. I have made alterations that suit my tastes and in doing so I have changed the game, in some cases beyond recognition. When a new book comes out I cut it apart (metaphorically) into items I can use right away, items that need alteration, and items I might never use. Heck, I have often thought it would just be better for me to cook up a setting specific PHB before each campaign I run because of the changes I make. Its not like I play 3e as written at all now.
So, in reality, the new edition probably has no real bearing on how I play. If it is good, I will change what needs to be changed to make it work in the manner I have become accustomed. If that means I only mine it for some details, that's fine. If it stinks it doesn't really matter, I will just ignore it. Why I insist on getting worked up about something that probably won't matter in the end is beyond me. Sometimes the indignation is contagious and sometimes I really feel like what I am reading is wrong. Either way, it doesn't affect me so why should I care?
I am kind of curious. We know the change has fostered some schisms in the online community. How are your home groups doing? How many groups are experiencing a difference in opinion concerning the release of 4e?
I sat at GenCon and was told I don't know how to build challenges for my players, that I can't run monsters effectively, and that I spend hours and hours prepping for my game, and I'm really not a good DM. None of this is true.
I think more accurately that you were told that the rules currently in place for making challenges and running monsters aren't as good as they could be. CRs, for example, are obviously broken. They serve, at best, as a rough guideline but they're not working as intended, which is to be more literal. All of us as DMs have to compensate for that and, really, we shouldn't need to do that right from the very start.
have to rest after 3 or 4 encounters. None of this is true.
But it is for many. There's no getting around the fact that caster classes in particular have a limited number of encounters in them until they have to rest to re-prepare spells. By switching to per-encounter spells and whatnot they're allowing 1st-level casters and new players to the game to actually play the game beyond three or four encounters.
I was also told the game my group and I have been enjoying the most and getting most fun and ease-of use of since 1979
If you're still playing 1e, then why do you care about any of this?
That I could not possibly be having fun, because I have to perform basic math and roll saving throws.
More likely, you were told that you'd have to slowdown or stop the game less often because of needlessly complicated rules.
I was told how one staffer proundly exclaimed most changes came about because he wandered around GenCon RPGA halls and made notes on things that he thought were not fun. Good, way to go, that's how D&D is played in basements and game rooms in home campaigns all over, you're a genius.
Noting what's not fun for everyone is precisely what the designers should be doing.
who blatantly insults me
I don't see it. I think you're reacting emotionally and with hyperbole.
I agree. The 2e revision wasn't significant enough (mostly editing and errata issues) to warrant it being called 2.5.
I do think the differences in 3.0 and 3.5 mark them as nearly different editions. Many of the changes were significant enough to change game play. Having converted a campaign from 3.0 to 3.5 I can say the transition was not entirely smooth.
In this case, personal perception is key. I see the two incarnations of 3.x as edition changes and thus I find that 4e is probably coming a bit too soon. Others obviously see the inverse and that's fine.
This is something that has been bothering me for awhile, the perception that 3.5 was an edition change and not just an update. Could you please tell me what changes between 3.0 and 3.5 changed the game play enough for you to see them as totally different edition to the game?
And I'm serious about this, it's an honest question. I made the transition quite smoothly from 3.0 to 3.5 in my gaming group, to the point that we didn't even notice it happening. The only differences I saw were mostly in the spells and a couple of feat mechanics, and some very small updates to the base classes. Rangers and druids were the most changed, and even they didn't change much. The biggest changes were in two weapon fighting and the haste spell, which frankly needed to be changed.
Yes, the monsters got some updates, but only in the numbers. They didn't even change enough for WotC to reprint the MM2. The formatting changed in the stat blocks, but the rules didn't change. Grapple was still grapple, armor class was still armor class, and all the rules were basically the same.
I have never seen 3.5 as a separate edition from 3.0, because all my 3.0 books were usable without any changes in 3.5. What makes you, and others that feel that 3.5 is a separate edition, feel that way? I'm genuinely interested.
|
|
I was also told the game my group and I have been enjoying the most and getting most fun and ease-of use of since 1979If you're still playing 1e, then why do you care about any of this?
Oh, sorry, no I play 3.5, but it seemed they were insulting all previous editions. And I get your points, I know I'm taking it all too personal. I know some folks are apparently having troubles, but I was there and I do remember some of the additude I got.
As for the stuff that's not fun for everyone, the mere fact that con games run very differently from home games is obvious to me. I just find the whole process they are taking to be overreactive and extreme.
And that's OK, I feel suddenly freed somehow, and am better for it. The whole 'package' is not for me, nor anyone I game with, and the company did sour me with their ideas and presentation. There, that sounds better. :-)
-DM Jeff
[snipped for space again... long threads today.]
1st edition was out from 1977 (the Monster Manual) until 1989. The PHB and DMG came out in 1978 & 1979, so I'd count that as a 10 year run.
2nd edition was out from 1989 until 1999... another 10 year run. The changes in the Revised edition of 1995 were relatively minor, so I don't consider them to be version 2.5 (though some people do).
3rd edition was release in 2000 and 3.0 stopped being supported in 2003 with the release of 3.5. That means it had a 3-year run!
3.5 has been around for 4 and 1/2 years.
Sorry but that just isn't cool with me and I won't be buying any of their products from this point onward.
PS: Nice avatar!
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here. Your time line implies that the differences between 3.0 amd 3.5 were the same kind of differences between 2nd edition and 3rd edition.
What you should be compairing it to is the update that TSR did in 1995, when 2nd edition got a minor update that did not constitue a new editon. 3.5 was the same kind of change.
You can still use 3.0 adventures without changes in a 3.5 game. The Monster Manual 2 is still 3.0! 3.0 and 3.5 are the same edition, and by 2008 when the 4th edition of D&D comes out, it will have had an eight year run. Long enough to print all the good material, and provide somebody witha lifetime of gaming material.
I realize that the 'too soon' issue comes down, basicly, to the feeling that 3.5 was a whole new edition and is not compatable with 3.0. I just don't agree with that. Yes, they printed a new editon of the core books, but they did not change the basic mechanics of the game. A few spells changed, a few feats got combined or removed, but the 3.0 products were still perfectly usable in 3.5, and they still are to this day. If you miss the old haste spell, you can just include it in your 3.5 spell list, and you know what? It doesn't break the game. It doesn't need any house rules. The machanics are the same.
Paizo is in fact proof of this, because their Age of Worms campaign pulled very heavily from the Monster Manual 2 which is a 3.0 product. That's where all those crazy Kyuss monsters came from, and that adventure path is some of the best 3.5 material on the market.
I feel, and have always felt, that third edition was s single edition. I've been playign it since 2000. I have a huge collection of books, and i don't see any way that WotC can continue to print suppliments without making the game worse with each book. They have decided to print a couple compilation books, and call the edition completed. I say good for them.
And thanks for the avatar comment :) I love it, and I really need to read the book it comes from.
|
|
I agree that 3.5 wasn't really worthy of being considered a whole new edition (which is why it was 3.5, folks, not 4.0). We made the transition very smoothly - almost unnoticeably, to be honest.
But I don't think it's the length of time that 3.x has been around that makes 4e "too soon" - it's the fact that 3.x is still getting very good support (until very recently even from WotC). It doesn't feel like it's had its full run yet, at least to me. It feels like it's still a quality, vibrant, system that doesn't need to be revamped.
The only reason this is an issue is because it's the same company. If Company XYZ came along and said "we're making a new system that will incorporate <insert all the things that WotC has said about 4e>" and at the same time WotC said "we're stopping producing anything for 3.x and getting out of the tabletop RPG business" then would there be this assumption that people would move to XYZ's product? Not likely. Some people would, obviously, but I don't think it would be anything like the support 4e is seeing now.
I just don't think that 3.x has run its full course like 2e did when 3.0 came along. That's what makes it feel like 4e is too soon.
|
|
What you should be comparing it to is the update that TSR did in 1995, when 2nd edition got a minor update that did not constitute a new editon. 3.5 was the same kind of change.
Except that the books that constituted the "2.5" update clearly had the word 'Option' in their titles (the line was called Player's Option, I believe) and were not considered core to 2nd Edition. Whereas 3.5 called for a new printing of all 3 Core Books (PH, DMG and MM) which meant that anyone wanting to be current HAD to buy those books. That's why many of us consider 3.5 to be a new "Edition" and not just a "Revision". You do see the difference, right?
Everytime a new Edition of D&D is born, the same three books are the first off of the assembly line: PH, DMG and MM (at least since Advanced D&D came about). You also have to realize that they basically reprinted the so-called splatbooks after 3.5 came about. Sword and Fist vs. The Complete Warrior and so on. More evidence of Edition rather than Revision.
So I think the words "too soon" are very justified.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Except that the books that constituted the "2.5" update clearly had the word 'Option' in their titles (the line was called Player's Option, I believe) and were not considered core to 2nd Edition. Whereas 3.5 called for a new printing of all 3 Core Books (PH, DMG and MM) which meant that anyone wanting to be current HAD to buy those books. That's why many of us consider 3.5 to be a new "Edition" and not just a "Revision". You do see the difference, right?
Except (I don't believe) those aren't the books he's talking about. In 1995, TSR rereleased the core books with slight revisions and new art. The Monstrous Compendium even changed format from the three ringed binder to a regular book.
So I think the words "too soon" are very justified.
*shrug* White Wolf has gone through 4 editions of WoD since it was released. I don't think it's untrue to say that most other rpgs get revisions much more often than D&D.
|
|
Except those aren't the books he's talking about. In 1995, TSR rereleased the core books with slight revisions and new art. The Monstrous Compendium even changed format from the three ringed binder to a regular book.
Ahh, that's my bad then. Yes, I actually have both versions of the 2nd Ed PH, DMG and both the ring bindered Monsterous Compendium and the perfect bound Monstrous Manual. And I have all three Player's Option Books and the DM High Level Campaigns Book (and the Council of Wyrms book too).
In any event, it's no skin off my nose. Every person has to decide for themselves; I choose to stick with 3.5. And I'm glad that the Cosmo doesn't delete every anti-4th Ed thread that gets posted here, unlike EnWorld and GleeTrash. It's getting to where either you're on board with the new, shinier Edition or you don't have a voice in those forums.
I am kind of curious. We know the change has fostered some schisms in the online community. How are your home groups doing? How many groups are experiencing a difference in opinion concerning the release of 4e?
My players have flat-out refused to have anything to do with 4e. While I am interested in a bunch of the mechanics and have given them updates on what I've found interesting, my players have poo-pooed it all.
No schism with them - they're all united.
|
|
I am kind of curious. We know the change has fostered some schisms in the online community. How are your home groups doing? How many groups are experiencing a difference in opinion concerning the release of 4e?
There is one person in 18 of the people I game with who has expressed that he will buy the 4e books when they come out. Since several of us have flat-out said we won't be playing 4e (and especially not in the new timeline for FR), that pretty much says where we'll be for a while. If we were to switch systems, it's most likely we'd switch to GURPS for one of the groups I game with. The others... just stay 3.5.
Except that the books that constituted the "2.5" update clearly had the word 'Option' in their titles (the line was called Player's Option, I believe) and were not considered core to 2nd Edition.
I'm afraid Sebastian is right, I'm not refering to the Player's option line, but the Revised edition of the main books themselves that appeared in 95.
The player's option line was different, and made some seriously radical changes to game play if you used them. They would have definitly been considered a new edition had they been the core mechanics.
Whereas 3.5 called for a new printing of all 3 Core Books (PH, DMG and MM) which meant that anyone wanting to be current HAD to buy those books. That's why many of us consider 3.5 to be a new "Edition" and not just a "Revision". You do see the difference, right? Everytime a new Edition of D&D is born, the same three books are the first off of the assembly line: PH, DMG and MM (at least since Advanced D&D came about).
Well, yes I can see that point of view. If you define newly printed core books as a new edition of the game then, 3.5 would have been one.
My problem with that is that the core mechanics of the d20 system remained the same between 3 and 3.5, meaning that you did not have to buy the books to stay current. You could keep your 3.0 books and use the updated and free SRD to update your game play with the changes to individual feats and spells, because most of the actual rules remained the same. I have a friend who did that, and he still uses his printed out SRD instead of buying a new book.
I don't see a new printing of the core books as the same as a new edition. I see changes to the system itself constituting a new editon, not mearly new artwork.
You also have to realize that they basically reprinted the so-called splatbooks after 3.5 came about. Sword and Fist vs. The Complete Warrior and so on. More evidence of Edition rather than Revision.
As for the splat books, you are correct. The Complete series did contain rehashed prestige classes and feats from the 3.0 books, but they also contained a lot of new material too. You only have to look at the size of the books to see that. The Sword and Fist series were each 96 pages long. Each Complete series book is 150+ pages long.
However, nothing in any of those books changed the fundimental rules of the game. The basic mechanics of the system remained the same between 3.0 and 3.5, pointing more to revison then edition, especially because the updates rules were provided free of charge on the net.
I am kind of curious. We know the change has fostered some schisms in the online community. How are your home groups doing? How many groups are experiencing a difference in opinion concerning the release of 4e?
My group won't be changing any time soon. When I first learned of 4th edition (as DM I'm the only one in the group that keeps up with D&D news, though that's their choice not mine) I asked them what they felt about it and no one wanted to switch. A lot of that is because we're currently involved in my campaign and it could potentially run for several more years if all of them want that. Right now they're all having a blast (which is something a DM loves to hear :D). Down the road when my campaign ends then we'll take a look at the merits of switching over.
I know that forum posters are not always an accurate cross section of the total gamer population but I feel like I'm in the minority here. All but one the players in my game is really excited about 4e and we've been discussing starting anew or trying to convert for the last couple of months. Only one players is just kinda "whatever" about it all. He's not really following the 4e news or overly concerned. He's the only guy in the group who only has the 3.5 PHB and nothing else though and only plays out of the PHB. He'll probably buy the 4e PHB and nothing else too.
|
|
Well it is the combat chapter, after all.
Yep. Complete with battle grid and miniature diagrams.
4e, from the way WotC is presenting it, will restrict the material for handling stuff outside combat, because "l33t r0xx0r p0wrz r k3wl."
Eh? And jut where are you getting that 4e is going to restrict your game outside of combat? That's kind of humorous to me.
And as far as l33t p0wrz?
Yeah, because 3e didn't have any books of l33t r0xx0r p0wrz, like the "Compl33t" series or "Books of Exalted l33tness".
I agree that 3.5 wasn't really worthy of being considered a whole new edition (which is why it was 3.5, folks, not 4.0). We made the transition very smoothly - almost unnoticeably, to be honest.
But I don't think it's the length of time that 3.x has been around that makes 4e "too soon" - it's the fact that 3.x is still getting very good support (until very recently even from WotC). It doesn't feel like it's had its full run yet, at least to me. It feels like it's still a quality, vibrant, system that doesn't need to be revamped.
[snipped a bit for space]
I just don't think that 3.x has run its full course like 2e did when 3.0 came along. That's what makes it feel like 4e is too soon.
Now see this is a very good argument for why people feel 4th edition is 'too soon'. It's not the time that has past since the last edition, but the difference in the feel of the game itself.
You are absolutely right. 3rd edition is still a quality, vibrant gaming system. When 2nd edition ended, the game did not feel that way at all.
We had horrible books coming out all the time, product lines being canceled and settings being abandoned. TSR was going bankrupt things were so bad. The game was actually in jeopardy of dying.
Now, the game is thriving again. WotC has made an amazing game system, and thru the OGL has provided us with such a vast quantity of material it could last a life time to play it all.
And I would argue that's exactly why the time to change editions is right now. WotC needs to produce a final books, like the Complete Rules Compendium, tie a big bow around this amazing package and then stop before they screw it all up.
If they kept producing 3rd edition books, that's what would eventually happen. How much longer can they keep producing expansion and splat books before the game no longer feels vibrant and begins to feel old, cluttered, and broken? A year? Another three? At what point does it no longer make sense to continue 3rd edition?
I don't want to see D&D take another downward spiral like it did before. If they wait until 3rd edition is no longer fun to play to update things, it will be too late. They will lose huge numbers of customers, and have to rebuild the game just like they did when they bought it from TSR. Not a good position for a game publisher to be in and not a good position for D&D as a game. I say that if we want D&D to feel like is does now in the future, the game has to change.
And for this I find you annoying. Don't ask a question and then try to invalidate all the answers under the guise of trying to "soften" the anti-4e'ers. Especially on these boards, where I think things have been mostly civil in this area.My hope with this thread is to soften the anti-4ers, not for them to accept my arguments, but to perhaps receive another perspective that may ease the current schism. To me, the best possible world is a better game that publishers (like Paizo) and gamers can use for a better campaign. But this is surely impossible if people don't even give the game a chance.
I apologize for being annoying, which was not my intent. Perhaps my blanketed statement that I'm trying to soften the anti-4ers was unfair. I'm not trying to invalidate (just question) the answers of others, nor have I flamed anyone.
I guess my basic reaction to a lot of anti-4e (not all of it, many have legitimate challenges with it) is that it seems that no matter what WotC did right now, it would be wrong. I refer back to the "poorly folded" $100 bill example above. There's a great deal of focus on the negative when I personally find a lot of what they've revealed to be positive.
To me, the fact that they have a DI that costs money to use is not a good argument against 4e cause it's just another optional service. Good argument - CEBrown at least explained to me why he feels 4e sounds like a video game with easy healing and so on. I may not feel the same way, but I at least know why he doesn't care for what he has heard.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well it is the combat chapter, after all.Yep. Complete with battle grid and miniature diagrams.
4e, from the way WotC is presenting it, will restrict the material for handling stuff outside combat, because "l33t r0xx0r p0wrz r k3wl."Eh? And jut where are you getting that 4e is going to restrict your game outside of combat? That's kind of humorous to me.
I seem to recall specifically talk of a negotiation mechanic to replace/repair the Diplomancer mechanic
|
But why will you give your money to a company that lies to you,
They haven't.
insults your intelligence with their PR statements,
I have not been insulted.
and sets a precident whereupon they don't listen to what their customers say?
They actually do listen. Just because they did not adopt the kinds of changes you would like to see does not mean they did not listen.
Do you not care? Do you not think that other companies act differently
Yes. No.
The larger the corporation the less personal its communication style. WotC is the largest game company out there so I expect it to be different then the rest.
If you don't have a personal problem with internet piracy and you like the idea of 4E then steal it off the web when it comes out, fine -- but support WotC?!
Why?
A) if you steal 4E you are a criminal, and in the end you are just hurting your local game store more than WotC anyway.
B) Why not support them. They continue to provide products that I want to buy. They are not running sweat shops or killing baby seals.
C) They are trying to get D&D out of the basement and have it accepted by a larger audience. A very good friend of mine tells people that he is gay before he tells them he plays D&D. When I was dating my wife we talked politics and religion, we got married, and then I fired my campaign back up. If WotC can take D&D from nerd to Geek then I'm all for it.
I have for the most part kept out of the 4.0 debates. I am somewhat surprised by the continual statements from those who firmly support 4.0, that "Improvements made to the game", and "4.0 will be a better game than 3.5", seem to keep coming endlessly from many of these proponants, and of course from the WoTC employees.
If you (any reader of my post) like fishing, many of you have likely gone fishing for years, at the same place(s), using the same fishing rod, and the same types of bait. The nice thing about fishing is that you don't have to buy a new fishing rod every 3-4 years, nor are you forced against your will to go to a new favorite fishing spot. Your hobby doesn't change. And you like that continuity.
If your favorite hobby is golf, do you have to go and buy new clubs or are you forced to play at a different course every 3-4 years? If you skateboard, are you required to purchase a new board every 3-4 years?...etc. You get the point...
Folks, this is a pencil, book, and dice hobby game. We're NOT talking about the cutting edge of technology here. The idea that those who do NOT support 4.0 or won't even consider it are somehow "closeminded" is nonsense. Many here merely want to have their hobby left the way they have known it. I'm sure a huge digital T.V. set would look better than the one I now use, but I'm content with what I've got, and I don't want to endlessly chase the 'latest fad or update' in technology, nor in an RPG. Failing that, those who are potentially supportive of 4.0, but have been soured by what they've seen so far, likely want to know the reasons behind the change explained in detail without the PR evasiveness that permeates everything we hear these days.
That being said, I for one believe that 4.0 is merely being done because 3.5 has been run into the ground, oversaturated with endless products after products, all done to make Hasbro money. What else is left to do with 3.5, that hasn't already been done in one of the hundred books already released from WoTC alone, not counting the OGL companies. This has diluded the game, and now in an effort to make more money, Hasbro has given WoTC their marching orders, and they're off to make the boss happy again. 4.0 is purely being done for the financial angle. Nothing more, nothing less. I for one would enjoy being humored by WoTC/Hasbro being courageous enough to step up to the plate and admit it.
Very well put.
Just because the order for 4.0 comes down from "the man" doesn't mean that the designers are not doing exciting work. I'm sure there nerdy just like the rest of us and love their jobs. You there, peon, make a new RPG and make us money! Umm okay... sounds good.
I edited my post like 3 times. My first attempt likened the Wizard's RPG Team to Oppenheimer and Einstein... the next attempt was an analogy to fishing the same hole, which was later refined to my above post about 3.5 having life yet...
I apologize if that makes the above post make no sense. Or possibly that THIS post makes no sense if Heathy also edited HIS post...
Gah I suck at this...
Very well put.
Thank you Jade (assuming you were referring to my post).
It disappoints me that WoTC were the very ones who have put out Watered-Down product after product, for the last 3+ years, which are the very reason why 4.0 (a necessary evil) is now needed.
Now these very same people/company who has produced the endless stream of watered-down products for 3.5, and profitted from them at our expense, are in effect telling us, "Thanks for your hard earned dollars, and to thank you further for supporting us these last few years, we're going to invalidate everything we've just sold you, by making you purchase the same product over again, in a nice new shiny package called 4.0. And we're going to tell you that it will 'Simplify' the game that we sold you over the last 3+ years and convinced you to buy."
Somehow, such a simplified game would seem not to require the use of Expansion books that the 'Confusing & Outdated 3.5' was "regretably Saddled with".
Makes you believe that they won't continue their past traditions of producing more endless splat books each month for this new "Glorious and Simplified 4.0 system."
Sadly, Rumor has it that the first round of Splat books for the new Superior & Simplifed 4.0 system are already announced on Amazon.com (so I hear, I have not looked myself.)
Delightful isn't it... It's all for the money. No more, no less.
Yes, I was referring to your post... then again, without naming you or quoting your post how will you ever know this one was intended for you either?
Yes, I was referring to your post... then again, without naming you or quoting your post how will you ever know this one was intended for you either?
Very true indeed. Thanks for the clarification Jade.
|
Just because the order for 4.0 comes down from "the man" doesn't mean that the designers are not doing exciting work. I'm sure there nerdy just like the rest of us and love their jobs. You there, peon, make a new RPG and make us money! Umm okay... sounds good.
I have low expectations for 4e and everyone I know shares my opinion. The vaunted playtest consists of running pre-generated characters through 10 combat encounters. That's sure to discover problems with the game rules, have 50 groups run through the same combats with the same PCs.
Here's the problem. It's a marketing ploy, not a playtest. The demise of the magazines and a number of other actions are aimed solely at marketing. The Clases and Races book came out less than two months after playtesting began. Do you actually think the playtests changed anything? And the classes and races book is a bid to get your $20 for a product that will be obsolete in six months when the PHB comes out and have you show it to your friends to generate buzz.
You are paying WotC for the privilege of advertising for them!
As P.T. Barnum said, there is a sucker born every minute and it looks like many of the WotC fanboys fall into that category.
Ed
I have low expectations for 4e and everyone I know shares my opinion. The vaunted playtest consists of running pre-generated characters through 10 combat encounters. That's sure to discover problems with the game rules, have 50 groups run through the same combats with the same PCs.
Here's the problem. It's a marketing ploy, not a playtest. The demise of the magazines and a number of other actions are aimed solely at marketing. The Clases and Races book came out less than two months after playtesting began. Do you actually think the playtests changed anything? And the classes and races book is a bid to get your $20 for a product that will be obsolete in six months when the PHB comes out and have you show it to your friends to generate buzz.
You are paying WotC for the privilege of advertising for them!
As P.T. Barnum said, there is a sucker born every minute and it looks like many of the WotC fanboys fall into that category.
Ed
*Warning: Troll detected*
No, here is the problem: Your post essentially boils down to "I think this way, and I must be right because a bunch of people I know agree with me. If you disagree, you are a fan boy and a sucker. Ad hominem attack, fallacy, blah, blah, blah."
This is a thinly veiled shot at anyone who happens to disagree with you. I hope you get warned if not banned. Shame on you.
Furthermore, Mr. Bugleyman, although you and some others may disagree with the poster's statement, his remarks were not even remotely so inappropriate or off color that he should be banned for them. It is unfortunate that your quick rush to condemn others who express contrasting viewpoints; is apparently being applied to over on the WoTC boards; where posters who make unflattering remarks about WoTC products or policy are reportedly being "removed" from participation. That limiting of reasonable debate and discourse is rather limiting of an individuals free speech; which fortunately, is upheld here on Paizo's boards.
Furthermore, Mr. Bugleyman, although you and some others may disagree with the poster's statement, his remarks were not even remotely so inappropriate or off color that he should be banned for them. It is unfortunate that your quick rush to condemn others who express contrasting viewpoints; is apparently being applied to over on the WoTC boards; where posters who make unflattering remarks about WoTC products or policy are reportedly being "removed" from participation. That limiting of reasonable debate and discourse is rather limiting of an individuals free speech; which fortunately, is upheld here on Paizo's boards.
If you actually read my statement, I'm not condeming anyone for expressing a contrasting opinion (in fact, I didn't *express* an opinion), but rather for dancing rather close to calling other folks "suckers" and "fanboys." That isn't expressing a relevant opinion, it is insulting people.
I would love to have a reasonable debate, but "arguments" that amount to attacks on people you happen to disagree with make that impossible. Which was kinda my point...
Actually, skimming through, and without a solid product to judge from, this is really what about 80-90% of the posts on BOTH sides of the 4E debate seem to boil down to.No, here is the problem: Your post essentially boils down to "I think this way, and I must be right because a bunch of people I know agree with me. If you disagree, you are a fan boy and a sucker. Ad hominem attack, fallacy, blah, blah, blah."
Agreed. Which is what I had hoped to change. :)
Jingle bells,
Wizards smells,
4's just another game!
Spend more cash, make Hasbro fat,
That's how "the game" is played.
Okay, take a shot kiddies!
AC: 12
Prone: +4 to hit
HPs: -10
(Just for the record, Kruelaid is interested in seeing 4E, but he's nobody's fanboy and he wouldn't buy Races and Classes unless it came with a sexy and very willing young strumpet glued to the inside cover.)
What kind of glue did they use? If it's biodegradable or - better yet - edible - I'd consider buying it then (but ONLY then)... :D
Horse glue. Made from the bodies of my brothers, beaten to a paste in 4E threads around the world.
|
|
No, here is the problem: Your post essentially boils down to "I think this way, and I must be right because a bunch of people I know agree with me. If you disagree, you are a fan boy and a sucker. Ad hominem attack, fallacy, blah, blah, blah."
Actually, skimming through, and without a solid product to judge from, this is really what about 80-90% of the posts on BOTH sides of the 4E debate seem to boil down to.
An excellent observation that I totally agree with. I'm in the "not switching to 4e" camp, and I have very little information on which to base that for tangible reasons. However, I have lots of intangible reasons that I tend to boil down to "principle". The people who are proponents of 4e have exactly the same amount of tangible information on which to base their decision, plus some intangibles that I would tend to boil down to "faith" in WotC to continue to make a good product. There is no way to resolve the opinions regarding the tangible information provided by WotC, and there is definitely no point arguing principles vs faith, so it's really just a mass exercise in futility, but an outlet for people's thoughts on the matters at hand. :)
No matter which "side" the post comes from, I don't like reading the useless namecalling ones, though. The words fanboy, 4e-hater, etc should be taboo here on the Paizo boards.
|
|
I have for the most part kept out of the 4.0 debates. I am somewhat surprised by the continual statements from those who firmly support 4.0, that "Improvements made to the game", and "4.0 will be a better game than 3.5", seem to keep coming endlessly from many of these proponants, and of course from the WoTC employees.
As one of the 4E supporters I would like to clarify my take on the whole thing.
I want the new edition because, for me, 3.5 has run its course. The holes in the rules are too big and the problems are beyond my tolerance level.
4E could suck.
If it does I will wave a fond farewell to D&D.
You are absolutely right. 3rd edition is still a quality, vibrant gaming system. When 2nd edition ended, the game did not feel that way at all.
We had horrible books coming out all the time, product lines being canceled and settings being abandoned. TSR was going bankrupt things were so bad. The game was actually in jeopardy of dying.
For the record, I think any association to TSR's bungling, inevitable downfall, and collapse upon itself really has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not 2nd edition DMs like me were (and still are) able to create and run vibrant games. That's a common misconception. The system obviously has flaws, but every system does, and it's up to each DM to make what they can of it.
This is all fine and good, but why are so many people who are content with what they have got so upset about the prospect of a new edition? If people were truly content with what they had then they wouldn't give a rat's ass if a new edition was released. Instead they are whining and crying about the "death of dnd". Personally, Dnd can never die for me unless I stop having players because i have enough material to run games indefinitely.
It is for this reason I'm happy to see the release of a new edition. I know that I have enough 3.5 material to last me until I'm an old man, so if 4E really sucks it so what? On the other hand, given that I have no need for any more 3E material, I'm happy to have a look at a new edition and see if it can offer me something better than the current one. The money isn't a big issue. I like to buy a rpg books regularly (even if I don't get a chance to fully use them), so buying a few new core books is no big deal for me. If I don't like the new edition then I won't buy past the core books, and if I like it better than 3.5 it will be well worth the money.
I have no interest in seeing more 3E books produced (though I want the Elder Evils books), and given that I feel 3E still has plenty of room for improvement (despite it being way better than 2E or 1E IMO), I'm eager to check out 4E.
As for 4E marketing, I'll give the paizoians, who seem so up and arms about it, that it is lame. However, I don't find it offensive- merely lame ass. It could be better no doubt, but it's nothing to get your panties in a knot over. I don't see this whole "down talking" thing that people have been complaining about. What I see is WotC trying to be a bit funny, but sucking at it.
IMO gamers are overly sensitive, and are taking things much more personally than they should be.
I have for the most part kept out of the 4.0 debates. I am somewhat surprised by the continual statements from those who firmly support 4.0, that "Improvements made to the game", and "4.0 will be a better game than 3.5", seem to keep coming endlessly from many of these proponants, and of course from the WoTC employees.
If you (any reader of my post) like fishing, many of you have likely gone fishing for years, at the same place(s), using the same fishing rod, and the same types of bait. The nice thing about fishing is that you don't have to buy a new fishing rod every 3-4 years, nor are you forced against your will to go to a new favorite fishing spot. Your hobby doesn't change. And you like that continuity.
If your favorite hobby is golf, do you have to go and buy new clubs or are you forced to play at a different course every 3-4 years? If you skateboard, are you required to purchase a new board every 3-4 years?...etc. You get the point...Folks, this is a pencil, book, and dice hobby game. We're NOT talking about the cutting edge of technology here. The idea that those who do NOT support 4.0 or won't even consider it are somehow "closeminded" is nonsense. Many here merely want to have their hobby left the way they have known it. I'm sure a huge digital T.V. set would look better than the one I now use, but I'm content with what I've got, and I don't want to endlessly chase the 'latest fad or update' in technology, nor in an RPG. Failing that, those who are potentially supportive of 4.0, but have been soured by what they've seen so far, likely want to know the reasons behind the change explained in detail without the PR evasiveness that permeates everything we hear these days.
That being said, I for one believe that 4.0 is merely being done because 3.5 has been run into the ground, oversaturated with endless products after products, all done to make Hasbro money. What else is left to do with 3.5, that hasn't already been done in one of the hundred books already released from WoTC alone,...
|
|
For the record, I think any association to TSR's bungling, inevitable downfall, and collapse upon itself really has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not 2nd edition DMs like me were (and still are) able to create and run vibrant games. That's a common misconception. The system obviously has flaws, but every system does, and it's up to each DM to make what they can of it.
Oh, for sure. I never intended to say that good games couldn't still be run using the 2e rules when 3e came out (and still, for that matter). We played using them every week until well after 3e made its debut. It was just the feeling that it was getting old... we still enjoyed the games we played with it, but we were in a place where the very introduction of 3e made us consider changing systems. There is obviously not one timeline for everyone... I think at the time 3e came out, though, the vast majority were at the point of being welcoming to a new ruleset and some new fluff that would invigorate their games. At the moment, I don't see that nearly so many people have "played out" 3e, and it's that to which I was referring.
Ryan Dancey said, in a podcast I listened to, that one of the major reasons TSR was at the verge of collapse was their release schedule had over 100 items per year on it when WotC bought them. The top-level execs refused to pare down the offerings so they could focus, and this was leading to both consumer fatigue and a serious dilution of the market.
As Journey said, "Don't stop believing" boys!
D&D4 won't pass by me. End of the story. I don't need it. I don't like it. I don't believe in the love and I don't believe in Hasbro. The changes suck and WOW-like games suck.
I do love my D&D3.5 and 2.0. I love my players and I think that the luck of RPGS is to be out of normal businesses in a way. And I want it to stay that way.
So don't stop believing...!!! :)
D&D4 or the best way to take your dusty vinyls from your collection and put "Money" from Pink Floyd at full volume! As we like dust and old stuff as they say, let's give them some old stuff! :)))
I also listened a few minutes ago to "Send me your money" from Suicidal Tendencies, and that was brillant (Highschool memories). Just replace the prophet/church of the lyrics by a certain company and you're gonna laugh....
Message not meant to be serious. Take it easy, pals.